ericynot1: Ransom once again has lambasted the BO admin, this time for its policies vis-a-vis Russia's Ukraine adventure. That's fine. But I'm left wondering what he thinks the right policy would be if we had a different president. It sounds as though Ransom thinks it's some sort of military operation ("force"). But what exactly? Bomb Russia? Bomb eastern Ukraine? Mass U.S. troops along the Belarus-Ukraine border (as though anyone would allow that)? Send a flotilla of Navy ships into the Black Sea? Drone attacks on Donetsk? Criticism is OK -- so long as you have a better idea about what to do. But I haven't seen that here today. And, frankly, I'm not sure there is a better idea.- A Policy So Bizarre, So Obama
Dear Comrade Y1,
The better idea would be to have a president who has some gonads and some sense of proportion.
Obama’s a guy who wears a bike helmet for safety reasons—for him—while telling the rest of us to disarm—for safety reasons—for the government.
Speaking of disarming, the time to have discouraged Russia would have been before they started trouble in Eastern Ukraine.
There were a number of ways we could have done that. Instead we choose to unilaterally disarm.
We should have built the missile defense system in the Ukraine. We should have admitted Ukraine to NATO. We should have completed a status of forces agreement with Ukraine that pushed the West’s NATO frontier from Germany into Poland and Ukraine. We shouldn’t have given the Russians a “reset” button on US-Russia relations. We should have helped them be less dependent on Russian energy, by supplying…wait…American energy to the country.
Those were all policy alternatives open to the administration, but since we can’t seem to even supply Americans with American energy resources, it’s no wonder Obama rejected these common sense proposals.
What would I do now?
I’d commit a division of troops, say the Third Infantry Division, to the parts of Ukraine not currently involved in the fighting. I’d speed up war material and aid to Ukraine including training in counter-insurgency operations. I would order the shootdown of the next Russian military aircraft that “accidently” penetrates into US airspace probing our North American defenses.
I’d ban commercial flights from Russia into the United States. I’d seize Russian state assets here in the US, including marketable securities in Russian owned companies. I’d make it illegal for Russian companies to raise money in American capital markets. I’d kick the Russian ambassador out of the country, close down their consulates.
Recommended
I’d encourage a group of radical, free market economics students who are studying Austrian economics at George Mason University, under the leadership of professor Peter Morici at the University of Maryland, to seize and hold hostage for 444 days the entire Russian embassy compound including the staff even to the Russian janitors.
Pusillanimity is not a substitute for policy.
Obama says he wants peace. But Obama’s version of “peace” includes war thrown in for good measure, at the most disadvantaged circumstances.
Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine: These are all victims of a president who has no testicles.
If I had a million dollars I'd pay a million dollars tomorrow* for a reporter to ask Obama is he even still has a set of balls. I mean for playing basketball.
*This offer expires at midnight August 15th 2014 and is contingent upon the author, me, John Ransom, receiving donations in the amount of $2 million, which can be directed to this publication's corporate offices.
Thank you.
NRMLUNIT wrote: John Ransom has a stick. He gets paid to use it to stir ---- up. If he does it right, it gets the attention of his target audience. This one doesn't come close to producing the aroma required. John, loosen up, let the hate flow. Don't try so hard.
The president’s birthday is Aug 4th. Don't forget to send a card. --Hollywood Anoints Obama Supreme Leader
Dear Comrade Unit,
Gee, how did a miss another Obama birthday? Oh, that’s right: Obama celebrates his birthday every single day. He’s THAT special.
Look, at the risk of stirring up the birther controversy again, I have to be honest and say that I’m not sure Obama was even born on the 4th of August. I think he was born on the 4th of July and those damn rich, Republican doctors—you know the ones who want to make a living in medicine?—are preventing him from celebrating the fact. Either that or Obama, in his modesty, is leading from behind on his birthday, celebrating it a month late.
I actually don’t use MY stick as stirrer—only a liberal would do that—I use it as a club whenever I can.
And I don’t hate—much.
For Obama I feel more of a loathing, a kind of contempt.
I never wanted to have a beer with Bill Clinton—his marriage to Hillary is just too weird for me to consider him normal; I’m even less inclined to treat Obama with the same courtesy I would extend to other living creatures.
Make no mistake: I don’t like politicians, even from the Right. So what do I do with a guy like Obama? I don’t hate him. But I certainly can only understand him by applying the logic of his particular brand of narcissism.
I have a rule: No crazy people. It always ends badly when you allow a crazy person into your life.
And that includes presidents.
JWJ wrote: It is about damn time since the Repubs have anointed Rush Limbaugh and the Koch Bros as their Supreme Leaders! --Hollywood Anoints Obama Supreme Leader
Dear Comrade JWJ,
Oh, we already did that.
There was a ceremony five years ago where we unveiled a Mount Rushmore type monument to Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers—the good ones only-- Ayn Rand and Dick Cheney.
We included Cheney because we knew it would make you mad.
The cool thing about the monument is that it’s twice the size of Rushmore, made entirely of gold—we cut our gardener’s wages by 5 percent for a week to come up with the precious metal—and the mouth of Ayn Rand opens up to house the headquarters of Team America, which now includes the newest team member: Sarah Palin.
Oh, wait…scratch that. That’s a liberal fantasy for their leaders.
Their Emmy-nominated (1x), Grammy-winning (2x), Nobel Peace Prize sporting (3x) leaders who somehow manage to accumulate wealth entirely while serving as public officials need a little public buffering because the tonguing they get from the media doesnt exist.
The Mount Rushmore thing for conservatives doesn’t actually exist.
Or does it?
You’ll never know, bwahhhhhhahahahaha!
dewed_rinse_cowboy wrote: "...undue scrutiny" of nonprofits? Ha!...that's hilarious. Nonprofits, in general, represent some of the biggest and most fraudulent scam organizations in the country.-- The IRS: A Public Monument to Sandra Fluke’s Privates
Dear Comrade Rinse,
How come I get the sense that the “dewed rinse cowboy” moniker is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing?
See? What do you know? I asked.
Asking seems to be the only crime Obama is interested in prosecuting.
I agree on the non-profit scam part. Tell me a bigger scam than National Public Radio getting taxpayer money along with non-profit status. I suspect that’s not what you meant though in your criticisms.
Here’s the thing: The IRS has enforcement tools to stop non-profits from breaking the rules. Here’s the bigger thing, the rules ignore the basic fact that money is private property, to be disposed of by the owner. If we didn’t have such a screwed up tax code, none of this would be an issue.
The rules you are talking about I suspect are the ones that allow wealthy individuals—like Warren Buffett-- to set up non-profits for the care and feeding of their family. The rules being abused by the IRS are about grassroots CONSERVATIVE activists who want to educate the public about issues important to them and would like to raise a small amount of money in doing so.
If the IRS folks harassing conservatives caught a big name conservative breaking the non-profit rules, we’d hear about it. But this is just harassment of political opposition. That the harassment is aimed at local moms using pin money to talk about free markets tells you all you need to know about how dishonest, freaked out, and worried Lefty’s have become.
The Happy Existentialist wrote: I laughed out loud at "sophistications." This is just another "I'm not a scientist, but..." opinion piece. I'm a conservative on most issues, but this is just moronic. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put it. My father is a professor at Johns Hopkins. Every REAL scientist I know says at the very least human activity IS influencing climate change, and not for the better. --The Devil in Global Warming Details
Dear Comrade Happy,
Is it even scientifically possibly for a real “existentialist” to laugh out loud?
I mean, don’t get me wrong: I have no doubt that you laughed out loud. Clearly as your handle “Happy Existentialist” indicates you are an unbearable snob with pretentions to intellectualism.
You clearly hold the rest of us in contempt.
You know how I know? You think we are so stupid that we haven’t heard the “I’m a conservative but even I support…global warming…Obamacare…Islamic extremism.”
That’s liberal talk, just like this old one: “What did you get your degree in?”
“No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts,” Robert Gascoyne-Cecil. “If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.”
Listen, I’m happy for your father, what with being a professor at Johns Hopkins, which undoubtedly makes him an expert at something.
My own father is a racecar driver. And Billy’s dad is an ambulance. Ambulances help people, make a lot of noise, and have flashy lights :-).
My suggestion Mr. Non-Expert Expert is to go read the study cited in my article. It was complied by real scientists. And the facts are not in dispute:
“We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”
You believe so fervently in global warming? Great. Everyone has the right to be an idiot.
But why are the scientists on your side continually caught lying to bolster their case if the case is so good?
That’s it for this week,
V/r,
JR
Join the conversation as a VIP Member